December 8, 2012

First Test Of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy In People Discontinued

The company conducting the first government-approved tests in people of a therapy developed using human embryonic stem cells abruptly announced Monday that it was halting the study, stunning advocates of the highly contentious field.

Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., said the move, which stops one of the most controversial and closely watched medical experiments in the history of biomedical research, was the result of a business decision to focus exclusively on developing cancer therapies.

“In the current environment of capital scarcity and uncertain economic conditions, we intend to focus our resources on advancing our . . . two novel and promising oncology drug candidates,” John A. Scarlett, Geron’s chief executive officer, said in a statement. “This would not be possible if we continue to fund the stem cell programs at the current levels.”

The company also announced that it was eliminating 66 full-time positions, representing 38 percent of its workforce.

Another company continues to test a second embryonic stem cell therapy in people. But Geron’s announcement marked a major setback and disappointment, researchers and advocates said.

“While stem cells are proving invaluable for research, translating the promising science into new therapies is a slow, painstaking process with many setbacks,” said George Q. Daley, a leading stem cell researcher at Harvard Medical School. “A safe first trial would have paved the way for many others to follow.”

The announcement Monday was a particular blow to advocates of research into spinal cord injuries and patients suffering from paralysis. The study was testing the treatment on partially paralyzed patients.

“I’m disgusted. It makes me sick,” said Daniel Heumann, who is on the board of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. “To get people’s hopes up and then do this for financial reasons is despicable. They’re treating us like lab rats.”

Human embryonic stem cell research has been the focus of intense excitement and acrimonious public debate, but it has so far shown promise only in animal and laboratory studies. The Geron study was the first government-sanctioned attempt to test a therapy using the cells in people.

Although the company will not treat any additional patients, researchers will continue to follow the four patients treated so far, “accruing data and updating FDA and the medical community on their progress,” Geron said. The company is also “seeking partners with the technical and financial resources to enable further development” of its stem cell therapy, it said.

Many scientists think embryonic stem cells could represent one of the most important advances in medicine. Because the cells can morph into virtually any cell or tissue, researchers hope they will eventually produce cures for a host of ailments, including heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and paralysis.

But the field is fraught with political, moral and ethical controversies. Days-old embryos have been destroyed to obtain the cells, which critics consider immoral. After many delays, the Food and Drug Administration last year approved two experiments testing therapies created from embryonic stem cells in humans, including a study testing Geron’s experimental treatment on 10 patients partially paralyzed by spinal cord injuries. Both studies were designed primarily to determine whether the approach is safe.

The studies have been seen by supporters and opponents of embryonic stem cell research as potentially pivotal to the future of the research. Some worried that not enough basic studies and tests had been done in animals before injecting cells into recently paralyzed patients. Others wondered whether patients who are struggling to come to terms with a devastating injury can make the risky decision to volunteer for the study within two weeks of such a trauma, one of the terms of participation.

In October 2010, doctors in Atlanta injected millions of cells made from embryonic stem cells into the spine of a 21-year-old Alabama nursing student who had been partially paralyzed in a car accident less than two weeks earlier. Subsequently, three other patients with similar injuries have been treated. The only results Geron has released indicate that none of the patients has suffered any significant adverse effects.

Supporters of the research said they were disappointed by the announcement Monday.

“This trial was a difficult but important one and will help future cell transplantation clinical trials move forward in important ways,” said Keith Tansey of the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, where two of the patients were treated.

Other scientists said that although they were disappointed, they were not entirely surprised.

“The first use of a novel untested therapeutic approach is always associated with some risk, and companies are understandably risk-averse,” said Arnold Kriegstein of the University of California at San Francisco. “However, other clinical stem cell trials with other disease targets are already starting, and the field is too promising not to move forward.”

Researchers are eagerly watching the second trial, which began in July when a team at the UCLA Jules Stein Eye Institute in Los Angeles performed two delicate 30-minute procedures. They infused 50,000 retinal pigmented epithelial cells made from embryonic stem cells into one eye in each of two patients in the hopes that the cells would replace those ravaged by two incurable eye ailments. The only results from that trial released by Advanced Cell Technology of Santa Monica, Calif., indicate that no safety problems have arisen.

Opponents of the research pointed to the announcement Monday as evidence of doubts about the research. The decision “may also indicate that it is not as promising as previously described, both in terms of commercial development as well as safety and efficacy,” said David Prentice of the Family Research Council.

Proponents dismissed such arguments.

“The fact that they launched the trial and that derivatives of embryonic stem cells have so far seemed safe are major advances,” said Sean Morrison of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. “This setback reflects the economics of cell therapy, not any issue specific to embryonic stem cells.”

 

Source: https://churchandstate.org.uk/2011/11/first-test-of-human-embryonic-stem-cell-therapy-in-people-discontinued/

Why Is Atheism A Bigger Obstacle To Political Office Than Mormonism?

Although it’s Republicans who are primarily making the charge that atheists are un-American, Democrats aren’t exactly lining up to defend non-believers.

When America was founded, it was the first modern nation to throw off the rule of absolute monarchy and prove that democracy was feasible. But at the same time, when America was founded, it was hardly a democracy at all. The vote was denied to women, to millions of enslaved human beings — to everyone except a relatively small number of its citizens. Despite the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests, many states had their own established churches that their citizens were compelled to support, and prejudice against Jews, Roman Catholics and other disfavored groups was ferocious.

In large part, the history of America has been a story of one group after another coming forward to demand the equal rights that had been denied to them, and winning those rights through strife and struggle. This process of social change is still playing out today, but some groups are further along the path to acceptance than others.

A 1999 Gallup poll asked Americans whether they would vote for a well-qualified presidential candidate of their own party who happened to belong to one of the following groups: Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, Mormon, black, woman, gay, or atheist. Only 49 percent of Americans said they would vote for an atheist candidate, by far the lowest percentage of all the groups. By contrast, 79 percent said they would vote for a Mormon, and even 59 percent said they would vote for a gay candidate. All the other categories had better than 90 percent agreement.

In 2007, Gallup asked the same question again. In this more recent poll, Mormons’ popularity dropped to 72 percent, but again, the only category that a majority of voters refused to even consider was atheists. And this discrimination extends outside the political arena. A survey in 2006 found that atheists are “America’s most distrusted minority,” ranking below immigrants, gays and Muslims in the question of whether average people think we share their view of society. This accords with what I’ve previously discovered for myself: anti-atheist bias is still a potent force in American politics, and it doesn’t just come from the right. It’s Republicans who are primarily making the charge that atheists are evil and un-American, but Democrats aren’t exactly lining up to defend us.

It seems likely that Americans’ tolerance will again be tested in the 2012 elections. There are still no plausible atheist candidates for national office, nor are there likely to be any in the near future; but a Mormon, Mitt Romney, is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Will his faith be an obstacle? In a piece published on AlterNet, Joe Conason argues that we shouldn’t be troubled by the differences between Mormonism and Christianity, but he says little about what those differences actually are. Here are some of the more significant ones:

Mormonism’s initial embrace and later recantation of polygamy.The one belief that’s most infamously associated with Mormonism is “plural marriage.” Although he denied it in public, reliable historians believe that Joseph Smith, the church’s founder, had dozens of wives. Allegedly, Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma, received a divine revelation addressing her by name — delivered to her by the mortal medium of Joseph Smith, of course — telling her to let Joseph take as many wives as he wished, and threatening eternal damnation if she refused permission.

Smith’s successors officially made the doctrine part of Mormonism, where it remained for decades. Finally, it was abolished by a suspiciously well-timed revelation to later church leaders when it threatened to block Utah’s bid for statehood — although even today, there are fundamentalist Mormon enclaves that continue to practice polygamy, most of them treating women in ways scarcely distinguishable from slavery. One of the better-known examples was the cult run by Warren Jeffs, prior to his conviction.

Mormonism’s beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. According to the Book of Mormon, Native Americans are the descendants of ancient Jewish settlers who lived around 586 BCE, who received a revelation from God ordering them to build a ship, sail across the ocean and establish a home in the Western Hemisphere, where they eventually developed into a large and complex civilization.

Unfortunately for the LDS church, genetic studies have failed to support this belief: genetic markers point to the Native Americans being descended from ancient Asian peoples who migrated across the Bering Strait. In the face of this evidence, church leaders have hedged and backtracked. Among other things, the church has changed the introduction to the Book of Mormon so that it now says Jewish settlers were only “among” the ancestors of Native Americans, rather than being their “principal ancestors” as was originally written. LDS apologists now mainly hold to a hypothesis called the “limited geography” model which states, in essence, that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in a single small region and left no evidence behind.

Mormonism’s now-recanted belief that black skin is a curse from God for sin. According to the Book of Mormon, one group of American settlers called the Lamanites fell into wickedness and were punished in the following manner:

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” –2 Nephi 5:21

Various members of the LDS church (including members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the church’s governing council) have stated that non-white people were born that way as a punishment for being “less valiant” in the spiritual existence which Mormons believe preceded life on Earth. But in either case, whether because of sins committed by their ancestors or because of their own sins in a previous life, people of African descent were excluded from the Mormon priesthood until 1978, when the church’s leaders announced that they had received another revelation ordering that this practice be discontinued. One might be forgiven for thinking that God was more than a little behind the times with this directive.

Their belief that human beings can become gods, and the converse belief that God was once a human being. As Jeffrey Goldberg put it, “[Mormonism's] relationship to Christianity is similar to Christianity’s relationship to Judaism,” and this is probably the best example of that. The Mormon belief of “exaltation” holds that the most faithful of believers may be elevated literally to divine status, becoming gods in their own right ruling over their own worlds. And they believe this process has occurred in the past: that God was once a human being who underwent the same process, and we are living in the world he created to govern.

As a further point of departure from historical Christian creeds, Mormons also believe in a heavenly mother, a divine feminine being who corresponds to the masculine deity, although this belief seems to be confusing, unclear and frequently overlooked even among Mormons themselves. Part of the reason this belief is often downplayed may be to fit in with the Mormon belief that only men can be initiated into the priesthood and rise to positions of power in the church, while a Mormon woman’s only designated role is to be a mother and a housewife.

Their belief in converting dead people to Mormonism through posthumous baptism. The LDS church performs “baptisms” on behalf of deceased people which, they believe, gives the dead person the opportunity to be posthumously converted to Mormonism and enter into heaven. Personally, I find this no more absurd than all the other churches which likewise claim the power to determine who goes where in the afterlife. Still, it can’t be denied that the LDS church has given itself a black eye with insensitive, embarrassing incidents like posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims against the wishes of their living descendants, not to mention President Obama’s deceased mother.

Their belief in concealing these and other church teachings from non-members. This incredible viewpoint can be seen expressed in, for example, this column by a Mormon editorialist who’s frustrated and upset that the Internet has made it possible for people to find out the “deep, esoteric doctrines” of Mormonism without converting. He refers to this as “an easy way to do yourself more harm than good.”

The general idea seems to be that a person considering Mormonism should first be told about its superficial similarities with Christianity. Only once they’ve converted, once they’ve invested significant time and effort in the religion and are less likely to walk away, should they gradually learn about the things that differentiate Mormonism from other religions. The LDS church refers to this doctrine as “milk before meat.”

I’m not saying that Mormonism, in any objective sense, is any stranger than other beliefs that are considered normal and mainstream by millions of Americans. (All evil in the world is because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat an apple!) Nor am I saying that Mormonism as a whole is any morally worse than any other religion. (It’s hardly the only church to have held deplorable beliefs about gays, women and non-white people.) What I’m saying is that Mormonism is unfamiliar, and prejudice, being based in ignorance, is almost always directed at people and things that are unfamiliar.

So why are atheists still widely viewed as unelectable, when a Mormon candidate for president is plausible and maybe even inevitable?

The first and most important reason, I think, is that Mormons try hard not to seem unfamiliar. Their missionaries and apologists go to great lengths to present their beliefs as just another kind of Christianity, with only minor differences with existing denominations. As we’ve seen, this is far from true, but it probably convinces many low-information voters. Considering that most Americans are even ignorant of basic facts about Christianity, the religion that 85 percent of them theoretically belong to, it wouldn’t be hard for a Mormon missionary to gloss over the differences in conversation. Atheists, of course, have no way to make a similar argument.

Tied in with this is the fact that Mormons put so much effort into presenting a public image of straitlaced sobriety and moral rectitude. Atheists, being far more diverse in our personal beliefs, are more easily stereotyped as moral degenerates — despite data showing that, on the whole, we’re at least as moral as everyone else, and even better than average in some respects.

And lastly, there’s one more factor to consider, at least when it comes to religious conservatives: Mormons have worked hard to reassure the Christian right that they’re on the same side. For instance, the LDS church and evangelical Christians found common cause in fighting marriage equality in California. But a more direct example was a speech given by Mitt Romney in 2007.

Romney’s speech has been compared to a famous 1960 speech by John F. Kennedy about the role of religious tolerance in America, but the similarities were only superficial. President Kennedy spoke of church-state separation as one of America’s greatest ideals and vowed that religious doctrine should never dictate public policy.

Romney took a different tack, arguing that we should write religious doctrines into law, but only doctrines shared by a sufficiently large number of American believers. As I wrote at the time, Romney “doesn’t truly want a candidate’s religious beliefs to be considered irrelevant. He’s just pleading for the circle of religious bigotry toward outsiders expanded slightly to include him — so that he can be in the inside, hurling barbs at those who believe differently, rather than on the outside…”

As proof of this, Romney said in the same speech that “freedom requires religion” — which means, as the Christian blogger Slacktivist pointed out, that atheists and nonbelievers must be the enemies of freedom. This is a shameful path for a member of a historically despised and misunderstood group to tread: in effect, telling the majority, “You shouldn’t hate us! Let’s join forces and work together so we can both hate that other group of people, over there. They’re the evil ones!”

 

Source: https://churchandstate.org.uk/2011/11/why-is-atheism-a-bigger-obstacle-to-political-office-than-mormonism/

Guantanamo is most expensive jail

This establishment, managed by the U.S., spends $800,000 for each of the 171 detainees, many of them held in custody without charges.

Data published in the Spanish daily, El País, and assigned to the Department of Defense of the United States, establishes Guantanamo prison as the world’s most expensive prison. The establishment, with 171 detainees in Cuba, are costing American taxpayers 137 million Euros (about 242 million dollars) per year, or 800,000 Euros each (1.4 million dollars). Meanwhile, the average spending per person in the prison system on American soil is 25,000 Euros (about 45,000 dollars) a year.

The Guantanamo prison, opened in 2002, months after the attacks of September 11, operates under the “logic of prevention.” Inmates sent to the site do not necessarily need formal charges. They can be kept in custody indefinitely, as long as the U.S. would consider them a risk.

The result of this controversial premise was exposed by Wikileaks in May 2011, with the leak of 759 secret records of 779 prisoners who have been through the establishment. According to the documents, at least 150 detainees were innocent people, including elderly people with dementia, psychiatric patients and teachers.

In an interview, Michael Strauss especially lays bare French violations and mistakes made by the U.S. government at Guantanamo Bay. Michael Strauss, a professor of International Relations at the Centre d’Etudes et Stratégique Diplomatique of Paris, explained to CartaCapital at the time of the leaks, that the prison was designed to shift the crime of terrorism from civilian to military and detain prisoners outside the USA.

“This scheme has created several new legal, political and moral issues. For the Americans, it became even more difficult to deal with terrorism with international partners.”

The documents showed that the most important aspects for the arrest of an individual were the amount of information known by the same and their degree of dangerousness in the future.

In prison, trying to escape the image of torture, the prisoners are checked every three minutes. The most dangerous, such as the alleged mastermind of the ideological attacks on Washington and New York in 2001, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, are monitored every 30 seconds. In addition, 1,300 local people work among soldiers, interpreters, cooks and psychiatrists.

Rights

The Guantanamo detainees captured in 2008 alone have the right to habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution. “This decision came only after several inmates spent six years detained without being charged with crimes, and after torture,” said Strauss. “The Court ruled that prisoners enjoy these rights, because the United States has a sort of de facto sovereignty in Guantanamo. Even if, officially, in fact, Cuba has sovereignty.”

The teacher pointed out the ambiguity of sovereignty as the main reason for the choice of prison, because it allows the special peculiar treatment of prisoners. “Where the Americans are, their sovereign legal system applies completely. And where they have jurisdiction, but are not sovereign, its legal system applies only partially. Thus, constitutional protections such as habeas corpus did not apply there,” he explains.

According to El País, about 20% of the detainees were arrested arbitrarily even according to military law. Moreover, the U.S. did not believe in the guilt of 60% of the prisoners.

President Barack Obama said he was making closing Guantanamo one of his main goals during the elections. In January 2009, the White House stipulated that in a period of one year the prison would be closed, but failed to stick to it.

“The recession would have a direct impact on a much larger number of people in the United States than anything that Washington did with respect to Guantanamo,” said Strauss. He says the economic crisis was one of the reasons Obama disregarded the promise.

Source: https://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/17-11-2011/119660-Guantanamo_is_most_expensive_jail-0/

Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia

Recently, the dictator Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (who for the traditional media remains as a democratic and righteous king) granted in an absolutely benevolent form the right to vote being passed for the women of his country.

The treatment of Abdullah goes together with the sympathy shown by the media to the dictator - or “president” - of Yemen, Ali Saleh, who has not fallen out of favor with the U.S., the parameter for media likes or dislikes. Treatment differs from that given to Bashar al Assad and Qaddafi, who quickly turned to bloody dictators for the media.

Palms and celebrations of the press, praise from allies and, of course, effusive congratulations from the U.S., who insist on bringing democracy to their enemies, but never to friends.

Is there indeed a difference in the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? Did it change or will anything change in … 2015, when will the elections come? As a matter of fact, which elections?

The country is a dictatorship where the “King,” is in charge, simple as that. Municipal elections take place soon, but of course this is not real benevolence that will now cost while the people must “be used” by the news. Read: it is necessary to cool enthusiasm and mask the inefficiency or inability to implement the decision broadly.

In addition to performing in local elections (half of whose members are elected and half appointed, but in the end have almost no power), women may also be part of the Shura, something like the national parliament. But this does not even come close to the popular vote, which is fully nominated by the “king.” That is, women can enter only if the king wants! They have to be a friend of the king, or the king’s woman …

It will be interesting in a country run by laws dictated by the mullahs that do not even allow women to drive. Women are dictated to by ruling mullahs, in a form hardly apparent, without effective powers.

It seems counter-intuitive. One sees how cosmetic the permission is from benevolent King Abdullah. Women can compete, but compete for what?

The issue goes even further. The king is not stupid, he doesn’t remain in power for decades without a modicum of intelligence (oil, wealth and being good friends with Yankees helps, of course). The idea is to give women a false power. Give them something that ultimately makes no difference outside of on paper.

Why, women can now vote. But they still need permission from their husbands to leave the house to go out and vote. They need permission from their husbands to apply!

If women cannot even leave the house unaccompanied, how and why the heck will they compete for any political office or even vote? Only with permission of their husbands (or parents, fathers, brothers, a “responsible” man). Something for the majority that is the same as nothing. Will they remain cloistered and void?

In Saudi Arabia - the most undemocratic and dictatorial country in the world, but a good friend of America - women have the same relevance as a cocoa bush, they exist only to give pleasure, to be consumed while they have some gas and cannot leave their place alone

Yes, the comparison is bad, but I think I understand. But well, as one expects how can women apply for and be elected if they cannot leave the house? If you cannot drive a car, or are not entitled to anything as human beings?

Imagine if, by some miracle, the king selects a woman for the Shura. She will legislate over her husband, over other men, but to even to go to parliament she needs the permission of these same men. To simply go out of the house! If the woman does not live in Riyadh, the capital, she needs permission to travel!

Abdullah gave women a right they can hardly enjoy, but still managed to deceive half the world (at least the half that takes pleasure in being deceived).

Celebrating this “victory” is the same as celebrating the “victory” of the mighty Libyan “rebels,” and that hypocrisy. A “victory” in which the side will not be able to enjoy the prize, given that they need permission to do so and they lack even a political system capable of allowing the effort to be valid, any change that makes a difference.

 

Source: https://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/27-10-2011/119448-Womens_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia-0/

The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World

The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World was launched simultaneously on 11 November 2011 at several locations around the world.
Please sign and share widely. Thank you for your compassion and support.

The aim of this Charter is to create a worldwide movement to end violence in all its forms. The People’s Charter will give voice to the millions of ordinary people around the world who want an end to war, oppression, environmental destruction and violence of all kinds. We hope that this Charter will support and unite the courageous nonviolent struggles of ordinary people all over the world.

As you will see, The People’s Charter describes very thoroughly the major forms of violence in the world. It also presents a strategy to end this violence.

We can each play a part in stopping violence and in creating a peaceful and just world. Some of us will focus on reducing our consumption, some of us will parent our children in a way that fosters children’s safety and empowerment, some of us will use nonviolent resistance in the face of military violence. Everyone’s contribution is important and needed. We hope this Charter will be a springboard for us all to take steps to create a peaceful and just world, however small and humble these steps may be. By listening to the deep truth of ourselves, each other and the Earth, each one of us can find our own unique way to help create this nonviolent world.

Why did we choose 11 November as the date to launch The People’s Charter?

‘When I was a boy … all the people of all the nations which fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month. It was at that minute in nineteen-hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields at that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind.’
(Kurt Vonnegut Jr., an atheist humanist, in his novel Breakfast of Champions.

Organisation

So far, the organising groups in various locations have organised launch events in their localities around the world. Some groups are organising follow-up events so that other people have the chance to become involved in local, personal networks.

See ‘Future Events’ for information about the next public event nearest you.

Signing the Charter

The People’s Charter can be read and signed online: click on ‘Read Charter’ or ‘Sign Charter’ in the sidebar.

 

‘A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.’ Mohandas K. Gandhi

 

Source: https://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com/

Tibet: What can other countries do?

At least 11 monks and nuns have set themselves on fire this year such is their desperation and condemnation of China’s repressive policies in their homeland.

Is it an effective form of protest? Will China change its policies?

Not likely, without clear and consistent pressure on the international stage, argues Professor Robert Barnett, director of Modern Tibetan Studies at Columbia University.

“We are not seeing strong signals coming from the major Western powers. We need to find a way to articulate these issues without seeming to impose on China,” Barnett said.

GlobalPost talked with Barnett about which countries are better at dealing with China, why changes China does make don’t necessarily get noticed, and whether focusing on what’s going on inside Tibet could actually be doing some harm.

What can, or should, other countries do about Tibet?

Basically, China assumes that it should push its objectives until it meets resistance. Because it sees itself as growing and recovering a lost historic role in a hostile environment, its underlying strategy is to pursue its strategic objectives up to the point where its competitors prevent it from going further — a mode that is typical of a nation at this point in its arc of growth.

This means that other countries need to maintain exceptionally clear definitions of what they will accommodate in terms of their interests, and that includes issues of rights and responsibilities. That’s easy when it comes to external affairs, where the Chinese recognize that we all have a role and interest, but we all have to find skillful and effective ways to explain why there should be limitations to Chinese action too, when it comes to affairs that they are convinced are internal, like Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, even sometimes the South China Seas. But it’s difficult, because these issues are very sensitive and complex when international players are involved.

We also have to think how diplomatic language is understood by China. For example, symbolic and ceremonial aspects of diplomacy are seen in Beijing as much more important than they are in the West. China knows that whether a US president meets the Dalai Lama, and whether he does so in a public or a private room, could conceal a larger strategic shift.

More importantly, Chinese diplomats carefully read the signs of diplomatic attention. Silence is very vocal — if you raise an issue and then don’t mention it again, it is taken as a concession. If you even slightly moderate the language you use to refer to it, it’s seen as a major concession. Backing off is a major signal, so Westerners have to learn that on some issues they have to learn to maintain a practice of repeated, consistent restatements of a principled position. Dull but important.

China is a major world power, but it still seems very sensitive to world perceptions of its policies. This doesn’t mean that other countries should be insulting or aggressive toward China. It does mean that Western governments need to be much clearer and more consistent in stating what their concerns are, and explaining why they have any right or interests to speak on internal issues.

Are you seeing Western governments that are doing this?

There has been more or less a complete collapse on policy consistency across the Western block in terms of knowing how to respond to assertive modern Chinese diplomatic skill. In western Europe, it’s a total write-off. They are easily divided, since they are numerous, and so are terrified of upsetting China. They’ve had years of China saying “If you criticize me, I won’t buy your next Airbus” and have failed to work out a way to deal with that strategy. It’s like watching someone throw dollar bills — or, rather, euro notes — into a crowd.

America has been more consistent, actually. They do try to maintain a clearer line and a more skillful sense of how to respond to various maneuvers. And America has said consistently on Tibet that China should change its policies there because they’re counterproductive, which is useful language since it appeals to their interests, not just ours.

But the most interesting gestures have come from countries in Scandinavia and eastern Europe, the latter presumably because they understand Leninist traditions of diplomacy.

We are not seeing strong signals coming from the major Western powers. We need to find a way to articulate these issues without seeming to impose on China.

Can you see anything shifting in the near future?

Actually the Chinese have made some micro-changes to their policies in Tibet as a result of pressure from both outside and inside, but they are so small that most specialists don’t even mention them.

For example, the new party secretary in Lhasa arranged last month for almost all Tibetan university graduates to have jobs. This week he said that all monks — of course he only means the few recognized officially — will have pensions and minimum allowances. They are certainly pouring more money into the area now, especially the villages, and though the effects of this are very much disputed, it shows a certain urgency of response.

We can be skeptical, and we should be to some extent — the methods of Chinese modernization in Tibet and elsewhere are rushed, manipulative, top-down and so on. That’s our responsibility in a situation where a people is not allowed to speak out.

But these moves are proofs of principle: they indicate that pressure works. That does not mean that all kinds of pressure work of course, and inside pressure is much more important than outside pressure. But it suggests that a skillful balance of the two does sometimes get noticed.

Could there be significant changes?

Perhaps the way Tibet is run by the Chinese could be changed, at least to some extent. The question is whether the changes that will come will be enough. It’s very doubtful, given the extreme conservatism of the current leadership. Still, when you live under an autocracy, sometimes small changes can make a much bigger difference than expected to the people living there. And you never know what they might lead to — which is also why the Chinese are so scared of making them. I don’t mean independence, but a broader civil society.

But there are shifts taking place of a more troubling variety. While people are focused on terrible tragedies in Tibet, a lot is being done in Nepal to the exiled Tibetan community there. It is now apparently illegal for them even to have certain private prayer ceremonies. Police raided a Tibetan cultural show in Kathmandu, a classical opera performance, recently. Thousands of Tibetans have been refused exit permits to come to the US, even though the US has prepared to issue visas. It’s incredible, inconceivable within what is supposedly a democratic society.

There’s no real dispute that this is all done directly at the demand of China. So Nepal, on this issue, is being run internally by its neighbor. I experienced this when I was last there a few years ago. I was surrounded and escorted at one point for a few hours by un-uniformed Chinese police when I was in a border area. They didn’t realize I could understand what they were saying.

And last week, there were news reports from India of a major Bollywood film being ordered by a government agency there to cut a scene that featured a “Free Tibet” flag. These are clearly challenges to democractic principles in those countries. They are fundamental shifts, but they are not discussed — and they are always done without public debate. In those neighboring areas, Chinese policy is happening all around us.

So, the focus inside Tibet is a distraction?

It is making us look in one direction while a lot is going on in other directions. Things are changing, just not in the direction we might like to see. We shouldn’t be alarmist about it, it’s all part of the normal chess game that the big political players are involved in, adjustments to regional balance and spheres of influence, but it requires attention and alertness.

Self-immolations are in the news. Besides reports today of a Chinese man who set himself on fire in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, China is also facing a wave of self-immolations in eastern Tibet.

At least 11 monks and nuns have set themselves on fire this year in protest of China’s grip on their homeland. Last week, the Dalai came forward and blamed China for the spate of tragic acts, saying its approach in Tibet amounts to “cultural genocide.”

For some, it was a welcome message from a figure who, inevitably, is at the center of any news out of Tibet. For others, it began the well-worn cycle that starts with the Dalai Lama condemning China, moves to China condemning the Dalai Lama, and ends without much changed.

“It’s hard to see new ways to describe the situation. But we have to keep on trying to describe it,” said Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibetan Studies program at Columbia University.

What should the Dalai Lama do?

GlobalPost spoke with Barnett about the likelihood that China will make some changes, what the Dalai Lama can really do, and why no one is an idle commentator on this issue.

The majority of Tibetans who have self-immolated this year have died. It’s clear these deaths are the result of more than a decade of repressive policies in Tibet. What is a helpful frame to make sense of this in the West?

Professor Robbie Barnett: We would have to imagine a government here treating universities as, let’s say, mafia centers or criminal cults that have to be repeatedly invaded by police. That’s roughly how the major Tibetan monasteries are being viewed now in China.

Local officials in the areas where these self-immolations have occurred, mostly around Kirti monastery in Ngaba, seem to have decided to go further with security policies than other areas. They are using techniques that had been used before only after major incidents, such as blockading a monastery, and cutting off food and water, sometimes for weeks, in response to a single-person protest.

So it looks like the area around Kirti has been used as laboratory for ways to manage the Tibetan population. It is an understatement to say that the experiment has not been successful.

What are the chances China will change its harsh policies?

In one sense the chances are higher than we think: The policies that are most provocative are not that difficult to reverse. Some Chinese officials also think them excessive — most Tibetans do — and it’s in China’s interest to reverse them. But there is no sign of the political will to do so.

In China, there is in general a cynical view of protests by Tibetans and other nationalities. Because there are some positive discrimination policies in place in China for Tibetans, many Chinese think that any protests by them are just attempts to get more funding and more privileges from Beijing.

They view Tibetan complaints as being all about the economy and about getting access to more economic goods. In that view, culture and religion are seen as secondary to economics, and a community that gets richer because of the state is expected to be satisfied with that.

There is also the fear of the internal domino effect. China is afraid that if it shows any flexibility to Tibetans, that will lead to more demands, which will ultimately lead to a heightened sense of Tibetan nationalism and demands for independence, which in turn will trigger demands for independence from other nationalities in China — and the areas inhabited by those nationalities cover some 60 percent of China’s landmass.

It’s not that China does not want Tibetans or others to have distinctive identities — people there enjoy superficial cultural exoticism and variety as much as Westerners do. But they want these to be ethnic identities, not national ones. They want them to see themselves as “ethnic groups” or “cultures” and not as “nationalities.” This seems to be why Chinese officials ordered in about 1995 that only the English word “ethnic” should be used to describe them, not the former official term, “nationality.”

So, the problems that stop them changing their policies in Tibet are political rather than practical; this is a very conservative leadership. There are many things they could do, practically speaking. They could limit the migration of non-Tibetans to these areas. They could appoint culturally-literate Tibetans as local leaders and create social partnerships with monasteries in terms of education and other issues. They could have true bilingual education policies, and they could stop the demonization of the monks and the practice of insulting the Dalai Lama.

If the Dalai Lama took a strong stand against the self-immolations, would they stop?

That’s a reasonable question that’s being asked by a lot of people. But it’s more complex than it seems if one considers the history and the context. The Dalai Lama has asked protesters to stop on many similar occasions in the past — when Tibetans have staged hunger strikes in India, for example. He has said that suicides for political reasons shouldn’t be encouraged. His government has said repeatedly that it does not encourage self-immolations.

But in the past when the Chinese have asked him to say something to calm the situation inside Tibet, and when he has done it, the Chinese officials have then demanded that he say something else that they want, as opposed to making a concession in return. This hugely damages trust, I think. That’s what happened in 2008: A major crisis was used as a bargaining opportunity to get the Dalai Lama to help. He tried to do that, and they then made more demands and more outrageous ones, while doing nothing on their side to calm the situation.

When we ask this question, we are imagining a diplomatic situation in which the Chinese side and the Tibetan side are working together to solve a problem. But that is not the situation, unfortunately.

Each opportunity is being used to try to humiliate the other side, at least by the Chinese officials in charge of talks. It’s not quite the same on the Tibetan side. In academic terms, the Tibetan negotiating moves are “communicative,” basically trying to persuade the other side or to appeal to emotion, while the Chinese manuevers are “strategic,” trying to cripple or weaken the other party. This is typical of asymmetrical negotiations.

What is needed is a new approach from both sides. The Tibetan side has been asking for talks for over a year, and they are waiting for the Chinese side to set up a mechanism for talks. So, it’s not that the Dalai Lama should be saying something, but it’s the two sides that should be coming together for talks, or have a mechanism for dealing with crises.

One thing that is obvious here, is that there needs to be a hotline for emergencies. A point of contact between the two sides for when the situation gets really dire.

But what can, or should, the Dalai Lama do?

His government has said it does not encourage these acts but understands the reasons for them. I think that’s a useful articulation of the issues.

The Dalai Lama is now saying strong things, like his most recent comments on China committing “cultural genocide” in Tibet. He seems to feel it is his role to criticize China in strong terms. It’s hardly surprising that he would feel frustrated, but is it the right thing for him to use such terms?

We have to remember that we’re all pawns in a larger situation, where each side is trying to get each of us to criticize the other. That’s very strong objective in China’s policies, and for Tibetans too. So I’m not sure it’s for me to tell the Dalai Lama what to do. We are not just idle commentators.

Everything is electric on this issue.

 

Source: https://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-rice-bowl/tibet-self-immolations-dalai-lama-china-foreign-policy-diplomacy

A radical Jew repented

PALESTINE – Mikhail Chernovska was an Extremist Jew who had declared his Islam, as well as expressed his enthusiasm to see the establishment of the Khilafah Islamiyyah, with Al-Quds as its capital. “Indeed, I have received guidance. The reason is only one, because I wanted to find the truth,” Mikhail said. This was conveyed by the Harakatut Tauhid Al-Islamy website, Tuesday 8th November 2011.

Mikhail has Muhammad Al-Mahdi as his hijrah (migrated) name, similar to the name of an imam in the end times who was promised by Rasulullah SAW, who will bring justice by establishing Dienullah on earth. Mahdi is a Jew who came from Azerberijan and later migrated to Palestine after he embraced Islam.

Mahdi’s residence right now is in the West Bank city of Hebron. He was born in Baku, Azerbeijan 37 years ago. This man from Azerbeijan lived in the midst of an extreme family. He migrated to Israel in the early 90′s.

Hebron is the site of the massacre by a Jewish radical, Baruch Goldstein, in the cave of the ancestors. At that time, around 29 Muslims were affected from the massacre. Thus, in conformity with that, Mahdi decided to moved to the Kiryat Arba settlement, where he lived with his hero according to his view at that time, Goldstein, and joined the extremist settlers.

He added that a discussion on religion and philosophy with a Palestinian who owns a garage for car repairs in Hebron, made him review his view gradually, until he embraced Islam and return to Baku in order to marry a Muslimah. Mahdi told that he received a warm welcome from his neighbours in Hebron, although his blood is Jewish.

Muhammad Al-Mahdi told the AFP correspondent when visited at home, “I used to be an extremist settler and hostile to them, but they treat me like they are a brother to me and they always offer assistance.” The fact that points to Mahdi’s life in Kiryat Arba, is as if unimaginable, after he converted to Islam and married a Muslimah, Sabina, who now have given birth to 4 children after living with him. “The settlers attacked me several times, and threw stones at my house, and wrote slogans on the wall inviting me to leave the place,” said this 37-year old man.

He added, “wherever we go we are being abused, as my wife wears jilbab, and she is repeatedly questioned by the security forces, but all I care is that my kids today are Muslims, and following the religion that I have chosen.” He is very excited to see the Khilafah Islamiyyah established with Al-Quds as its capital.

He asserted: “I realized that there are many contradictions in the Jewish religion, and that Islam is a religion of wisdom and truth, I have received guidance because I was seeking for the truth, that’s the only cause of me becoming Muslim,” said Al-Mahdi, while acknowledging the kindness of his friend Zalloum, the garage owner, who had become the reason he received hidayah.

Zalloum admitted that from the beginning he knew Mikhail, what appeared in his perception was that Mikhail is a good person, unlike most of the settlers in Kiryat Arba. He often had a dialogue with Mikhail on issues of religion and philosophy, until one day he said to Mikhail: “If it’s not me who becomes a Jew through you, you’ll be the one who embraces Islam through me, after six months of discussion, finally he received the hidayah to embrace Islam,” revealed Zalloum.

Zalloum added: “It’s true that Mikhail has become Muhammad al-Mahdi, but he could not let go of all the Jewish culture, the Star of David Fusm on one of his hands would always remind him that he is a Jew, although he carries on the day with demonstrated achievements, from punctual obligatory prayers to reading Al-Qur’an.”

 

Source: https://www.thosepeoples.tk/2011/11/radical-jew-repented.html

Big Media’s double standards on Iran

The mainstream U.S. press corps is again pounding the propaganda war drums, this time over dubious accusations of Iran’s secret work on a nuclear bomb. It is a pattern of bias that Robert Parry calls the U.S. media’s worst — and most dangerous – ethical violation.

Arguably, the most serious ethical crisis in U.S. journalism is the deep-seated bias about the Middle East that is displayed by major American news outlets, particularly the Washington Post and the New York Times.

When it comes to reporting on “designated enemies” in the Muslim world, the Post and the Times routinely jettison all sense of objectivity even when the stakes are as serious as war and peace, life and death. Propaganda wins out over balanced journalism.

We have seen this pattern with Iraq and its non-existent stockpiles of WMD; with the rush to judgment about Syria’s supposed guilt in the killing of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri; with the false certainty about Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing; and many other examples of what everyone just “knows to be true” but often turns out isn’t. [For more on these cases, click here.]

The latest example of this ethical failing relates to reporting about Iran on such topics as the buffoonish plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and a new set of dubious allegations about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In these cases, U.S. mainstream news media happily marshals sources with histories of credibility problems; treats implausible scenarios with utmost respect; jettisons crucial context; and transforms the grays of ambiguity into black-and-white morality tales of good versus evil.

Then, behind these war drums of the U.S. press corps, the American people are marched toward confrontation and violence, while anyone who dares question the perceived wisdom of the Post, the Times and many other esteemed outlets is fair game for marginalization and ridicule.

An example of this propaganda passing as journalism has been the recent writings of Joby Warrick of the Washington Post about a vague but alarmist report produced by the new leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

On Monday, the Post put on its front page a story about Russian scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko, a leading expert in the formation of nanodiamonds who spent several years assisting Iranians develop a domestic industry in these micro-diamonds that have many commercial uses.

But Warrick’s story is fraught with spooky shadows and scary music that suggest Danilenko is really part of an ongoing drive by Iranian authorities to overcome technological obstacles for a nuclear bomb. Just like in that spy thriller “Sum of All Fears,” a greedy ex-Soviet nuclear scientist is helping to build a rogue nuclear bomb.

Warrick wrote: “When the Cold War abruptly ended in 1991, Vyacheslav Danilenko was a Soviet weapons scientist in need of a new line of work. At 57, he … struggled to become a businessman, traveling through Europe and even to the United States to promote an idea for using explosives to create synthetic diamonds. Finally, he turned to Iran, a country that could fully appreciate the bombmaker’s special mix of experience and talents.”

Now, Warrick continued, Danilenko has been identified by Western diplomats as the unnamed scientist cited in the IAEA report as advising Iran on the explosive techniques to detonate a nuclear bomb. Warrick’s story continues.

“No bomb was built, the diplomats say. But help from foreign scientists such as Danilenko enabled Iran to leapfrog over technical hurdles that otherwise could have taken years to overcome, according to former and current U.N. officials, Western diplomats and weapons experts.”

Slanted Tale

However, Warrick crafts the story in a very misleading way, leaving out key facts that would create a less ominous picture. For instance, the article fails to mention that the U.S. intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 that Iran had stopped its work on a nuclear bomb in late 2003.

Danilenko, who has insisted that his work was limited to advising Iranians on the explosions used to manufacture nanodiamonds, last worked in Iran in 2002 and the explosive test that the IAEA associates with Danilenko – and which supposedly might have nuclear implications – was conducted in 2003.

In other words – even if one accepts that Danilenko is lying about his work in Iran – nothing in the Danilenko story undercuts the U.S. intelligence community’s NIE. To leave out this crucial context in the Post’s article suggests an intention to frighten rather than to inform.

Indeed, what is notable about the curious IAEA report is how much of it predates late 2003. [For a contrasting view of the Danilenko evidence, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Iran’s Soviet Bomb-Maker Who Wasn’t.”]

Warrick also relies heavily on the expertise of discredited arms control analyst David Albright, the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright was a prominent voice in promoting President George W. Bush’s pre-invasion case that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

Yet, from reading Warrick’s article, you would have no idea of Albright’s checkered history. You would simply assume that Albright is an unbiased expert who is bringing his analytical skills to bear to help us untangle difficult questions about Iran’s nuclear research.

But Albright and his ISIS actually have a pattern of imbalanced work on nuclear proliferation and the spread of other dangerous weapons. For instance, ISIS has essentially ignored Israel’s real nuclear arsenal – with only a few brief items over the past decade – while obsessing over a non-existent nuclear arsenal in Iran with scores and scores of reports.

Albright has continued this disproportional emphasis despite the fact that Israel is arguably the world’s most notorious rogue nuclear state. It has built up its undeclared nuclear arsenal after refusing to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and keeping IAEA inspectors away from its nuclear facilities.

By contrast, Iran signed the NPT, has renounced nuclear weapons, and has allowed IAEA inspectors to monitor its nuclear energy program. Granted, Iran’s cooperation has been less than stellar but its record is far superior to Israel’s. Yet, Albright and his ISIS have largely turned a blind eye to Israel’s nukes and focused instead on Iran’s theoretical bomb-making.

(On Sunday, when non-mainstream journalists confronted Albright about the disparity between ISIS’s concentration on Iran and neglect of Israel, he angrily responded that he was currently working on a report about Israel. If so, it would be Albright’s first substantive study solely on Israel’s nuclear program since ISIS was founded in 1993, according to an examination of its Web site.)

Conned on Iraq

Albright also has not been above harnessing his selective outrage over Middle East weapons in the cause of U.S. war propaganda.

At the end of summer 2002, as Bush was beginning his advertising roll-out for the Iraq invasion and dispatching his top aides to the Sunday talk shows to warn about “smoking guns” and “mushroom clouds,” Albright co-authored a Sept. 10, 2002, article – entitled “Is the Activity at Al Qaim Related to Nuclear Efforts?” – which declared:

“High-resolution commercial satellite imagery shows an apparently operational facility at the site of Iraq’s al Qaim phosphate plant and uranium extraction facility … This site was where Iraq extracted uranium for its nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. … This image raises questions about whether Iraq has rebuilt a uranium extraction facility at the site, possibly even underground. … The uranium could be used in a clandestine nuclear weapons effort.”

Albright’s alarming allegations fit neatly with Bush’s propaganda barrage, although as the months wore on – with Bush’s warnings about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa growing more outlandish – Albright did display more skepticism about the existence of a revived Iraqi nuclear program.

Still, he remained a “go-to” expert on other Iraqi purported WMD, such as chemical and biological weapons. In a typical quote on Oct. 5, 2002, Albright told CNN: “In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now.”

After Bush launched the Iraq invasion in March 2003 and Iraq’s secret WMD caches didn’t materialize, Albright admitted that he had been conned, explaining to the Los Angeles Times: “If there are no weapons of mass destruction, I’ll be mad as hell.

“I certainly accepted the administration claims on chemical and biological weapons. I figured they were telling the truth. If there is no [unconventional weapons program], I will feel taken, because they asserted these things with such assurance.” [See FAIR’s “The Great WMD Hunt,”]

Given the horrendous costs in blood and treasure resulting from the Iraq fiasco, an objective journalist might feel compelled to mention Albright’s track record of bias and errors. But the Post’s Warrick doesn’t.

A Troubling Trend

While Albright may stand out as a troubling example of how biased analysis works, he surely is not alone. Nor is Warrick’s selective journalism atypical of what regularly appears in the U.S. mainstream news media.

For instance, also on Monday, the New York Times published a lengthy article, entitled “Israel Lobbies Discreetly for More Sanctions After U.N. Report on Iran,” that discussed how Israeli leaders are working behind the scenes with threats and sabotage to stop Iran from advancing toward a nuclear bomb.

While a journalist perhaps doesn’t need to mention Israel’s nuclear arsenal each time allegations are lodged against Iran, it would seem quite appropriate for this article by Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem to take note of the hypocrisy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior officials complaining about Iran’s hypothetical bomb when they have many real ones.

Yet Kershner’s article ignores the Israeli nuclear arsenal even as it raises concerns about how an Iranian bomb could touch off a regional nuclear arms race.

Netanyahu is quoted as saying: “The international community must stop Iran’s race to arm itself with nuclear weapons, a race that endangers the peace of the entire world.” The article then adds:

“While Israel regards nuclear-armed Iran as potentially an existential threat, it also threatens moderate Arab states and could set off a destabilizing regional arms race. … The [IAEA] report did not speculate on the time it would take Iran to produce a nuclear weapon, but Israelis say it shows Iran is moving ever closer to the nuclear threshold while Western powers have been dragging their feet on action to stop it.”

Given these observations, one might think the New York Times would have inserted somewhere that Israel is itself a rogue nuclear state, possessing an undeclared nuclear arsenal that is regarded by experts as one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated.

Also, if Iran does move ahead toward building a nuclear bomb, one of the obvious factors would be that nuclear-armed Israel is constantly threatening to attack – and Iran suspects that Israel might be joined by the United States, the world’s preeminent nuclear and military power.

After witnessing the outcomes in Iraq and Libya – where leaders dismantled their nuclear programs – compared with North Korea, which pressed ahead to build a nuclear bomb, Iranian leaders might regard possession of a nuclear bomb as an existential necessity.

Forgoing a nuclear bomb didn’t save Iraq’s Saddam Hussein from dangling at the end of a rope or Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi from having a bullet shot into his brain. However, North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il is still alive and holding power.

But the harsh necessities of geopolitics aside, journalistic ethics require presenting relevant details and nuances to the reader. To leave them out – especially to do so repeatedly with a predictable bias – is where the Post, the Times and much of the U.S. mainstream news media fall down.

For many years, one set of rules has applied to “designated enemies” in the Muslim world and another to Israel and various Arab “friends.” There is an unspoken bias or “group think” – and it is as undeniable as it is unacknowledged.

This hypocrisy has become so deeply engrained in the U.S. news media that the double standards are regarded as the natural order of things. Since Iran is perceived as unpopular in the United States and Israel is generally popular, Iran gets pummeled while Israel gets pampered.

But just because all the important U.S. media outlets violate the ethical rules of journalism on this front doesn’t make the behavior good journalism.

America’s double standard on Middle East reporting is a fundamental violation of journalistic ethics – and it has contributed over the past decade to getting many innocent people killed.

Source: https://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27697

Prepare for Armageddon

Armageddon (commonly known as the battle against the anti-Christ) according to the Bible, is the site of a battle during the end times, variously interpreted as either a literal or symbolic location. The term is also used in a generic sense to refer to any end-of-the-world scenario.

According to some Muslim and Christian interpretations, the Messiah will return to earth and defeat the Antichrist, Satan the Devil, in the battle of Armageddon. According to the Muslim belief, it would be Imam Mahdi who would precede Prophet Isa (Jesus) who would fight the one eyed beast called Dajjal (Anti Christ). Then Satan will be put into the “bottomless pit” or abyss for 1,000 years, known as the Millennial Age. After being released from the abyss, Satan will gather Gog and Magog (Ya’juj and Ma’juj - peoples of two specific nations) from the four corners of the earth. They will encamp surrounding the “holy ones” and the “beloved city” (this refers to Jerusalem). Fire will come down from God, out of heaven and devour Gog and Magog after the Millennium.

According to the Muslim belief, the forces to battle the one eyed beast would rise from the area of Khurasan that comprises of portion of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and part of Central Asia. If the anti-Christ forces have assembled in Afghanistan, it’s not a coincidence but well thought out Zionist strategy to take on Pakistan, the nuclear power of the Muslim world so its free to advance other Muslim territories without any fear.

Most historians and scholars believe that the present stretching of the US and NATO Forces far and beyond their legitimate areas of interests, is a sign of final showdown. The placement of US forces in Afghanistan is seen as the final build up to attack the Muslim lands. This could well become the graveyard of the US troops from where they may never escape death. Presently, the grouping of pro and anti Christ Forces is seen to be taking place. The US and NATO clearly appear to be on the side of the Anti-Christ and siding with the Zionists the real anti-Christ Forces. Zionists are known to be Satan worshipers in their secret hideouts therefore are working to create a godless world and control the entire resources.

Sensing these developments, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin prior to his departure for China, cautioned his generals to prepare for Armageddon. A similar message was also delivered to the Chinese leadership that has the Chinese Forces also on high alert. Apparently in the same context, Putin has resolved all differences with China to forge a clear unity for times ahead.

Sino-Russian alliance is very timely, seeing the hard threatening statements of Hillary Clinton that she fired at Pakistan from Kabul before flying to Islamabad is very alarming. Pakistan has some hard decisions to make.

Commander William Guy Carr, in his book ‘Pawns In The Game’ probably written in 1948 stated that third revolution and third world war are in the offing for which the grouping is taking place. He also stated categorically that the third world war would be against Islam.

Plans for this “Total Global War” or the war against Islam the Americans are preparing to launch were first revealed to China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) by a former Blackwater agent Bryan Underwood who has been apprehended by the US authorities for spying.

If one observes the way the US and NATO are waging their wars in Muslim countries proves William Carr to be correct.

Blackwater, the global contractor for CIA is operating in almost all the target countries, arrest of Raymond Davis in Pakistan did expose the US designs; had he been retained and grilled for some indefinite time, much more would have been revealed. Pakistan is infested with Blackwater, they have made inroads in ethnic political parties more so in Karachi, the port city of Pakistan. Balochistan has also become a hotbed where secessionists forces are being patronized by CIA, MI6, Mossad and RAW. As believed now, the US has also launched biological warfare in Pakistan where dengue is killing people on daily basis.

On reading the situation of the coming US plans for Total Global War, Putin spelt out an alliance to integrate the former Soviet Republics into closer cooperation. He scheduled an emergency trip to China to meet with Hu, and ordered the FSB (Russian Agency) to notify China’s MSS of the arrest and detention of their spy Tun Sheniyun who was captured last year for attempting to steal sensitive information on Russia’s most powerful anti-aircraft system.

Today Libya has fallen, how the Libyans would benefit from it only time would tell but one thing is sure that US and her allies have formed a bridgehead in Africa. Further deployment of the US troops in Africa are taking place, its China encirclement there where China has friends in the Muslim countries. Sudan has been split, and Obama plans to occupy some other countries like Uganda, Somalia, Morocco etc. In Africa, says Obama, the “humanitarian mission” is to assist the government of Uganda defeat the Lord’s resistance Army (LRA), which “has murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women and children in central Africa”. Incidentally, Africa also happens to be the Chinese success story therefore by taking over Africa, China would also be chocked. Libya was one of the major oil suppliers to China now that hangs in air. Gaddafi was trying to dump dollar for gold that instigated the US to attack her through a cleverly manipulated and orchestrated moves.

After having been deceived in Libya where the US assured both Russia and China that it will not attack but did quite contrary to what was promised. Sensing that US plans to attack Syria, Russia and China were quick to veto the American resolution in the security council that infuriated the US Ambassador Susan Rice who left the session in rage.

Dick Cheney pointed out in his 1990s “defence strategy” plan, America simply wishes to rule the world so that’s forging ahead following the Nixonian doctrine, ‘seize the moment.’

Reported by the EU Times, the “New Great Game” moves being planned by the Americans is to strike fear into both Russia and China that includes:

1.) The deliberate implosion of both the US and EU economies in order to destroy the Global Financial System that has been in place since the ending of World War II

2.) The launching of a massive conventional war by the US and EU on the North American, African and Asian Continents to include the Middle East

3.) During this all-out war the deliberate releasing of bio-warfare agents meant to kill off millions, if not billions, of innocent civilians

4.) At the height of this war the US and its allies will sue for peace and call for a new global order to be established in order to prevent the total destruction of our planet.

Confirming the fears, an unidentified source within the US Department of Defense (DOD) warned that the Obama regime was preparing for a massive “tank-on-tank” war and that US military forces are “expecting something conventional, and big, coming down the pipe relatively soon.”

To how close this war may be the FSB in their report states that it will be “much sooner than later” as the Americans have pre-positioned in Iraq nearly 2,000 of their M1 Abrams main battle tanks, have pre-positioned another 2,000 of them in Afghanistan, and between the Middle East and Asia have, likewise, put into these war theaters tens-of-thousands of other typed armored vehicles. This should be a grave cause of concern for Pakistan.

Being at war, the US can also effect “Full Mobilization” of over 1.5 million American reserve forces which can occur at “at a moment’s notice” for which US needs no Congressional approval to expand their areas of operation is also being examined when America is fully poised to advance in Asia and Middle East.

Now that Hillary Clinton is on her Pakistan visit accompanied by the new CIA Chief, David Petraeus, Chairman US Joint Staff, General Martin Dempsey and Marc Grossman. Keeping the armoured buildup in the region and having an Armour Officer as the new Chairman of Joint Staff, could one say it a coincidence or a planned strategy?

Hillary, as expected that I mentioned in my CNBC News analysis on 19th October, has arrived with a tough warning for Pakistan, saying, “We will do it with or without you.” This has certainly placed Pakistan in a very trying situation. Pakistan has other options to join the third force that is in formation led by Russia and China to counter the US moves in the region. If Pakistan, Iran, Syria and other Muslim states including Saudi Arabia join this alliance, that would certainly deter the US and her allies, if not then every Muslim country would fall one after the other without exception and their assets would be frozen.

Important to note about the American plan for global domination through massive warfare is that it is not really a secret, and as (curiously) revealed on the tenth anniversary of the 11 September attacks upon the United States when the US National Security Archive released a memo written by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in September 2001 wherein he warned “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the US will not achieve its aim.”

To what the “aim” of the United States is as their war against the world has now entered its 10th year, the FSB says, is to prevent “at all costs” the implosion of the US Dollar as the main reserve currency of the present global economic system before the West’s envisioned “New World Order” can be established.

The first threat to the Americans “master plan” for global hegemony came in November 2000 when the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein quit accepting US Dollars for oil and, instead, stated his country would only accept Euros. In less than 10 months an attack on the US was engineered and used that as an excuse to topple Hussein and reestablish the US Dollar as the world’s main reserve currency.

Interesting to note is the failure of Libya’s former leader Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency that would serve as an alternative to the US Dollar and allow African nations to share the wealth, but which like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein “plan” brought a swift and brutal invasion by the Americans and their Western allies to keep it from happening.

The only nation that has successfully abandoned the US Dollar is Iran, who since February 2009 abandoned all American currency opting instead to value their oil and gas in Euros. Iran, however, and unlike oil rich Iraq and Libya, has not been attacked due to the Iranians having acquired from Ukraine between 6-10 nuclear armed X-55 missiles (range of 3,000km [2,000 miles]) in 2005. Although the former Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko denies that the missiles contain their nuclear tips, a statement disputed by the FSB who states they were armed and “ready to fire.”

As a preemption, to counter the planned American blitzkrieg into Central Asia and Pakistan from Afghanistan, Indian Army Chief General VK Singh warned yesterday that thousands of Chinese military forces have now moved into Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir joining an estimated 11,000 more of them believed to have entered that region in the past year.

Before the US ventures into other Muslim lands, the US would want a submissive or a broken and denuclearized Pakistan. In both the scenarios it would mean Pakistan’s death. In such a scenario, Pakistan maybe compelled to go for non conventional weapons; if such a development takes place, India, Israel and the US installations in the region would not be safe. Can the US risk such a situation would only depend on the arrogance and sanity level of the US leadership.

 

Source: https://www.thosepeoples.tk/2011/11/prepare-for-armagedon.html

Islamophobia of the West and historic perspective

Islamophobia is one of the overriding factors behind the policy of persecution and oppression of the Muslims by the US and its non-Muslim allies. Muslim-Christian antagonism dates back to the period of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who was blessed with prophet hood in 610AD.

In less than twenty years he transformed the savage Arab tribes into a civilized people. When Mecca was captured in 630AD and cleared of all the idols, he forgave all those who had persecuted and insulted him and forced him to migrate to Madina. Mecca became the cradle of a new civilization and fountain-head of a new culture. Infussed by his teachings, the Arab nomads brought about the greatest revolution in the annals of mankind. The Christians and Jews indulged in endless intrigues and conspired to undermine Islam and defame Holy Prophet. Reverence to the greatest benefactor of mankind among 1.5 billion Muslims spread all over the globe remains undiminished.

During the era of four Caliphs of Islam (632-661AD), the two mighty empires of Byzantine and Persia were dismantled. In the space of 100 years the Arab Muslim armies conquered an empire extending from the Pamirs in the east to the Atlantic coast of Morocco in the west, and northward into southern France. The Muslim Empire was a more civilized society than that of Christian Europe. Tolerance and justice exhibited by the Muslims towards other religions have been universally acknowledged. However, despite the benevolence of the Muslims, the Christians viewed the progression of Muslims as a threat to Christianity and nurtured innate grudge against them.

Spain was ruled by the Muslims from 714 till 1492 during which it attained world fame. Cordova was turned into a world ranking city of culture and education and became the centre of learning. The rulers showed tolerance towards Christians and Jews and were given complete liberty to build churches and synagogues. The glorious Muslim civilization in Iberian Peninsula dispelled the darkness that had enveloped Medieval Europe. Once the process of their decay set in, the Christian powers got united under the banner of Ferdinand and invaded Spain. Helped by disgruntled Muslim notables, Cordova was captured in 1236 and Seville in 1248. The capture of last stronghold of the Muslims at Grenada in 1492 made the Christians the masters of Spain and put an end to Andulusia civilization abruptly.

The Christians killed all the Muslims who refused to exile or convert to Christianity. A large number were converted by force while millions were banished. But even conversion to Christianity could not save them from the wrath of Spanish Christians. They were subsequently massacred. Although all traces of Muslim heritage, art and culture were obliterated after the ‘cross’ replaced the ‘crescent’ from the horizon of Spain, and the Moors themselves faded into dustbin of history, Spain and the western world stand forever in their debt. The Spanish Muslims left behind indelible marks on the Spanish culture, language, race and geography.

Although western and Hindu writers created a myth that Islam spread through the power of sword and have dried their pens describing the atrocities committed by Muslim rulers, slaughter committed by the crusaders have no parallel. Jerusalem was retaken in 1099 by Christian forces in a veritable bloodbath. All the 70,000 Muslims and Jews were slaughtered. When Caliph Omar took over Jerusalem in 7th century, he didn’t put a single person to sword.

Turning the pages of history about the Crusade wars, in their desperate bid to possess the holy land of Jerusalem, Palestine and Egypt from the Muslims, the Christian world instigated by religious priests launched series of ferocious Crusades from 1096 onwards. All told, eight Crusades were launched during the period of 1096-1271, in which the holy city exchanged hands several times. Never before the Christian world was so culturally united as it was on the occasion of first Crusade. Pope Urban II exhorted the Christians to make war upon the ‘wicked race’ that held the Holy Land.

The Crusaders apart from shedding rivers of blood of Muslims poisoned the minds of the west against the Muslims by deliberately representing teachings and ideals of Quran. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was described as anti-Christ and religion of Islam depicted as a fount of immorality and perversion. It was represented as a religion of crude sensualism and brutal violence. They kept sowing seeds of hatred and resultantly misperception about Islam and Prophet got permanently planted in the minds of Christians.

When Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi re-conquered Jerusalem in 1187, unlike the brutal ways of Christians, he spared all those who surrendered their arms. Women, children and old men were set free. When the combined armies of France, Germany and others tried to retake Jerusalem in 1189, they suffered a decisive defeat and were routed in 1192. The military defeat of the Crusaders left deep imprints of prejudice and hostility among the Christendom against Islam, the effects of which have persisted till today. The second phase of Crusades was undertaken by European nations in late 13th century. The Crusades which petered out in 17th century continue to shape global imagination of US leaders to this day. Deep-seated prejudice against Islam, found in western literature and in the minds of current generation is rooted in history of hate that took birth during Crusades.

Muslims were considered highly progressive in science and technology till 14th and 15th centuries. They had gained enviable prominence in several branches of science, especially medicine, chemistry, optics, mathematics, astronomy and philosophy. After the long rules of Ummayads (661-750) and Abbasids (750-1258), the Ottoman Empire (1290-1566) wielded considerable political and military strength and held sway in Europe, Asia and Africa. Its vast dominions included major parts of southeast Europe, West Asia and North Africa stretching from gates of Vienna to the wall of China in east; and from Ukraine in the north to the source of Nile in the south.

The great Empire started withering in 16th century due to over extension and lust for materialism. Apart from the Ottomans, another powerful Muslim Empire that emerged in 16th century was the Safavid Dynasty in Persia that reached its peak under Shah Abbas. It ruled with firmness for 200 years. Yet another dynamic and great Muslim empire in that period was that of the Moghuls in Indian subcontinent (1526-1858) which remained at the pinnacle of its glory till 1707.

Europe was in darkness till the Renaissance in France. It had passed through orthodoxy, intolerance and irrationalism under the influence of popes and cardinals of that time. The west became civilized after annihilating eight-century old Andulusia civilization. From middle of 15th century, Europe got engulfed in commercial revolution. Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and England embarked upon exploring overseas markets in the east. By early 16th century, the European economy had expanded manifold and gave rise to capitalism. By 1600, Western Europe had gone through cultural transformation and by 1800 it had reached a stage whereby it could dominate the world in general and Islamic world in particular. Europe and North America became economically prosperous and militarily stronger than the rest of the world as a result of industrial revolution.

Europe started making speedy scientific and technological progress from middle of 18th century. The overseas colonial expansion by the European nations which had waned a little recommenced after 1870 under the title of ‘new imperialism. Industrial revolution in Europe heightened the need for raw material and cheap labor. Great powers jostled for additional colonial territories in Middle East, Africa, Asia and Pacific Basin rich in minerals and raw materials. Moral justification propounded by the colonizers to annex economically self-sufficient Muslim states was to enlighten the uncouth in Asia and Africa and to usher in progress and civilization. Forced evolution of Muslim societies was justified under the phrase of ‘white man’s burden’. By end of 19th century, the Europeans had most of Africa and much of Asia. Britain held the largest empire and its navy was unchallenged in any ocean of the world.

Economic prosperity of European powers also witnessed growth of antagonism between Christian powers vying to gain supremacy. Heightened rivalry between European powers ultimately led to First World War (1914-1918). Consequent to 2nd world war in which Germany under Adolph Hitler had embarked upon an ambitious plan to make Germany the most powerful nation of the world, the British Empire on which the sun had never set got exhausted economically and was no more in a position to administer its colonies effectively. Similar was the case with other colonial powers. In the wake of commencement of freedom movements, Britain decided to free its colonies and withdraw east of Suez. Britain convinced the newly emerged super power USA to fill up the power vacuum to checkmate the other super power Soviet Union and to subsequently neo-colonize its liberated colonies. Arab states in North Africa got freedom from France as late as 1960s.

Throughout its little less than 100 years rule, Britain went all out to shatter the spiritual and cultural heritage of the Indian Muslims. Before partition of colonized India in August 1947 by the British, Governor of United Provinces William Moore wrote a book on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in which he wrote negatively about the Prophet. He said, ‘Two things are the worst enemies of humanity; Prophet Muhammad’s Quran and his sword’. Britain gave a parting kick to Muslims by dividing India unjustly. It penalized Muslim Pakistan and favored Hindu India. Unresolved Kashmir dispute is the British legacy left behind which has bedeviled Indo-Pak relations. Ever since India and Pakistan have become independent, Britain has always sided with India and harmed Pakistan’s interests.

From early 1950s, the US embarked upon a multifaceted program to contain communism and weaken Soviet Union. Matching nuclear and conventional power of USSR restrained USA from making headlong confrontation and restricted itself to cold war. It had to ultimately seek assistance of Muslims to defeat its arch enemy. In the Afghan war in the 1980s not a single non-Muslim soldier took part. The US and western world glorified Mujahideen. Till the downfall of USSR in 1989, communism was regarded as the biggest threat to western ideology and capitalism.

Once the cold war ended and the US emerged as a sole super power, the neo-cons in USA and in western countries started a whispering campaign portraying Islam as the chief threat to Christian world. They advocated confronting the new threat with all available means. It was in line with this propaganda campaign that Samuel Huntington came out with his book ‘Clash of Civilizations’ in 1996, which set in motion plan for 9/11. Academics and think tanks sprung into action to promote the theme. Plans were made as early as 1997 to invade Afghanistan where Jihadis from all over the Muslim world had assembled to fight the evil empire of USSR and had not returned to their respective countries. Religious seminaries established in FATA region and funded by CIA to train students as Jihadis had also multiplied.

Jihad in Afghanistan had encouraged Muslim freedom fighters in Indian occupied Kashmir, Chechnya, Uzbekistan and elsewhere to wage liberation movements. The neo-cons not only desired annihilation of the main base of Jihad in Afghanistan but also the Jihadi producing seminaries in FATA. Invasion of Afghanistan and converting it into a permanent military base became all the more vital when Taliban succeeded in controlling social vices in Afghan society by introducing Sharia, and Pakistan aligned with Taliban turned nuclear. Iran had already slipped out of US hands. It was feared that unless proactive measures were taken, an Islamic bloc of Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan may come into being. Denuclearization and secularization of Pakistan were listed as priority objectives.

The hidden hands of neo-cons and Jewish lobby prevailed upon the US Supreme Court to declare George W. Bush a winner in November 2000 elections despite that he had lost to Al Gore. 9/11 gave President Bush a readymade excuse to play havoc with the Muslims under the garb of global terrorism. After the attacks on World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Bush gave a policy statement, ‘We are starting a long-drawn-out Crusade’. On another occasion he said, ‘We will dry up ponds (Madaris) which produce mosquitoes (Islamic Ulemas). Vice President Dick Cheney viewed Muslim world as ‘brute and nasty’.

After such pronouncements, the militarily strongest and economically richest countries of the world pounced upon Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries of the world which had no connection with 9/11 and trampled it with their military boots. An orchestrated propaganda war was unleashed in USA and whole of Europe. Rupert Murdock managing Fox TV channel led the propaganda assault against Islam, coloring the perceptions of the west with many false impressions about Islam. CNN, ABC, BBC and western print media also chipped in. Jihadis of 1980s eulogized as Mujahideen and holy warriors were converted into terrorists. Small and unknown al-Qaeda outfit under Osama bin Laden created by CIA to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan was depicted as a global threat.

The mass media propelled by the US neo-cons constantly poisoned the minds of the west. Public thinking and perceptions about Muslims were thickly colored by portraying them as terrorists and Islam defined as a terrorism breeding religion. To further harm Islam, the western media further accentuated the British inspired concept of categorizing Islam into two categories as radical and moderate, and Muslims were treated accordingly. A notion was implanted that terrorism was exclusively confined to Muslim Arabs and non-Arab Muslims. The propagandists put aside left-wing and right-wing terrorists and international terrorists present among all religions and atheist world. All guns were trained on radical Muslims and non-Muslim radicals were spared.

Soon after annexation of Afghanistan, McCain, Lieberman and John Kyl lobbied for Saddam Hussein’s removal at the behest of Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider was also a proponent of Iraq invasion. Fictitious stories to justify invasion of Iraq included WMDs, ties with al-Qaeda, Iraqi bio weapons laboratories, and purchase of yellow cake uranium from Niger. Saddam was declared a danger to humanity and Iraq was unjustly invaded. After destroying a modern and progressive country which was not involved in 9/11, and had done no harm to USA, Saddam was sent to the gallows.

It has now been established that 9/11 was engineered essentially to neo-colonize the Muslim world and capture its resources so as to pre-empt future danger from Islam, which the sole super power considers to be the only potent threat that could thwart its ambitions to gain total global monopoly. Many Americans contend that it was an in-house affair.

Even if 9/11 was not an in-house affair, the act was performed by few individuals who could have been brainwashed. Mind control techniques are in use of CIA for over six decades. What was so difficult for the CIA to control the minds of 19 Arabs for the implementation of neo-cons-Jewish agenda against Islam? Under no hypothesis it can be said that the suicidal acts were Islam inspired or supported by Muslims.

Military interventions against Muslim countries were justified under the veneer of morality by using false phrases of freedom, liberty, democracy, women emancipation and human rights. Muslims were persecuted on the plea of homeland security of USA. Different set of phrases were used for the two annexed countries.

Pamphlets were circulated projecting Quran as a book of terrorism. Few years ago a translation in English of Quran was published, which was subsequently translated in ancient Ubrani language. Under the title ‘Quran the ultimate truth’, thirty objections were raised which were widely circulated through media. An effort was made to prove that Quran was not a divine book but authored by Prophet Muhammad. Highly insulting language was used in respect of Holy Prophet. At one place it is written, ‘Quran is full of contradictions; hence it cannot be a book sent by God. Rather, it is a creation of a person suffering from delusion and dejection, or else few persons have collectively compiled it’.

In order to prove their contention that Quran is not a heavenly book, they challenged one of the injunctions of Quran saying ‘If you have doubts about its veracity, produce one Surah’ matching its quality. Four Surahs were produced by the challengers. Such wicked attempts to malign Quran were off and on made by non-Muslims, but after 9/11, Quran was targeted with a vengeance. For centuries the Jews and Christian zealots have been trying to prove that Quran is not a divine but have failed. As against all other heavenly books, Quran is the only Holy Scripture in which not a word or even comma has been modified, added or subtracted and remains unchanged because God had promised to protect it.

Vatican Pope played a negative role in undermining Islam. He has ignored prolonged caricature campaign in newspapers and on internet in some western countries to malign the image of revered Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), injuring the sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims.

Nonie Darwish a converter to Christianity and Frank Gaffney are among the leading Islamophobes in USA. Darwish presents Islam as cruel, intolerant and anti-women. In her view, mosques and schools in Arab world teach the children virtues of Jihad and instigate them to resort to violence against non-believers. Both are inflaming hysteria against Islam. Islam-haters forget that the west is the originator of terrorism and is Muslim focused.

Hatred of non-Muslims against Quran and Islam has risen to such an extent that rulers of advanced countries are pressing the Muslim rulers to modify Quran by way of deleting verses pertaining to Jihad and Qital. They are demanding closure of Madaris or as a minimum changing their teaching syllabus since in their view these institutions are fomenting terrorism against the west. While image of Madaris and the ones running them are being smeared, no mention is made of ‘mind control techniques’ being employed by CIA.

54 out of 57 Muslim states have been made secular and efforts are in hand to secularize the rest as well. Most Muslim rulers are pawns of USA who accept its discriminatory and anti-Islamic policies. Practicing Muslims in Muslim countries and residing abroad are being brutally persecuted while those who know little of their religion and have adopted western culture are treated as transitory friends best-suited to defame Islam.

The US wants to impose western brand of democracy and civilization upon the Muslim world. It wants puppets and not upright and popular Muslim leaders. Having learnt bitter lessons from Algeria’s fair and free elections in early 1990s and Palestinian elections in 2003 in which Islamists were elected, it encourages use of fraudulent means to ensure election of compliant rulers. In case of Pakistan the US was instrumental in brokering a secret deal between Gen Musharraf and late Benazir and later on in the issuance of hated NRO which enabled USA to micro-manage Pakistan affairs and brought it to such a sorry state.

Islamophobia in actuality is an irrational fear of Islam and is an effort to save socially decaying western civilization. It is ironic that the age-old western resentment against Islam should still persist subconsciously at a time when religion has lost most of its hold on the imaginations of the people of the west. The shadow of Crusades hovers over the west to this day. A recent example of this inbuilt hatred was seen in Florida where a bigoted pastor Terry Jones burnt copies of Quran and is unrepentant on his shameful act. Without having read the Quran, he maintains that Quran encourages terrorism against Christians and poses a threat to USA and western world. Such self created lurking fears of extremist Christians together with their economic ambitions have upped the level of their hatred against Muslims to such heights that their thirst to suck the blood of Muslims has become unquenchable.

While Afghanistan and Iraq have been ruthlessly destroyed and close to two million people massacred, Pakistan is being continuously bled and economically ruined despite that it is an ally. Propaganda war as well as physical war against Muslims under Barack Obama has not scaled down even a wee bit. Sudan has been divided and Libya is now targeted and soon there will be a regime change and a US puppet installed. Sooner than later, Syria will be under fire. Yemen is fast cracking up from within and several other Arab states in turmoil are providing opportunities to USA to intervene. Military interventions and slaughter of Muslims are solely aimed at neo-colonizing Muslim world, capturing their natural resources and giving a deathblow to Islam.

The US supported by western allies, Israel, India and Russia are all engaged in killing Muslims on the pretext that extremist Muslims are all terrorists and pose a danger to world peace. The UN supposed to follow even handed policies is highly biased and is anti-Muslim. While it promptly points finger at Muslim countries and unhesitatingly approves economic sanctions and military actions, it ignores high handed policies and human rights violations of USA, Israel and India. It is rightly dubbed as the mistress of USA since it has all along served non-Muslims vested interests.

Sensing that the roots of Islam are being systematically weakened with the help of their pawns within Muslim countries, the Islamists dubbed as terrorists are confronting anti-Islamic forces with whatever primitive means available and are getting bled profusely. Muslim blood will continue to be spilled by non-Muslim powers as long as Mir Jaffars, Mir Sadiqs, AlQami and Toosi are present within Muslim ranks and string-puppet rulers dancing to the tunes of Washington sit in corridors of powers. No foreign conspiracy, covert war or physical intervention can succeed without their support.

 

Source: https://www.thosepeoples.tk/2011/11/islamophobia-of-west-and-historic.html